Judgment 1. This revision application has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.12.2006 passed by Sri D.K. Pandey, Additional District and Sessions Judge- Cum-Fast Track Count No. Ill, Sitamarhi in Criminal Appeal no. 50/06 thereby and thereunder he has confirmed the judgment and order with modification in sentence dated 19.6.2006 passed by Sri Upendra Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi in G.R. Case No. 2097/05, Trial No. 1616/06. 2. It appears that the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 25(1-B) of Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo imprisonment for six months more. The petitioner was also convicted under Sec. 26(1) of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment he was directed to undergo imprisonment for six months more. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The petitioner preferred appeal against the above judgment of conviction and sentence and the appeal in question was ultimately heard by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Sitamrhi. The Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned judgment confirmed the conviction with modification in sentence. The sentence has been modified to Rigorous imprisonment for two years under Sec. 25(1-B)A of Arms Act along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-. However, no modification has been made in the sentence awarded under Sec. 26(1) of Arms ct. 4. In course of submission learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the order of conviction recorded by two courts. He has confined his argument only on the point of sentence. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has already remained in jail custody for last one year and two months. The petitioner was found in possession of only one fire arm with four cartridges. This petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is also apparent from the judgment of the appellate court. It is further submitted that recovered fire arm was also not produced in course of the trial before the learned Magistrate. 5. Leaned counsel for the State has no objection to the modification of sentence awarded to the petitioner. 6. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgments of both courts. 7. It is further submitted that recovered fire arm was also not produced in course of the trial before the learned Magistrate. 5. Leaned counsel for the State has no objection to the modification of sentence awarded to the petitioner. 6. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgments of both courts. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the period of sentence already undergone by the petitioner is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 8. In the result, this application is allowed in part. The sentence awarded by the lower appellate court is hereby further modified to the period already undergone by the petitioner. 9. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.